Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath
"They Laughed When I Wrote This Book Review. But When They Woke Up in an Ice-Filled Bathtub..."
1.
Can a book teach readers how to present ideas so that the ideas stick in other people's minds? Even readers who are not particularly creative? Even readers who can't deliver polished speeches? Even readers who don't have strong credibility or the resources of a PR firm?
You see, I have a problem.
I want to win the Star Slate Codex Book Review contest. But I expect a lot of other people are entering the contest, and some of them are probably way better at writing book reviews than I am.
I'm just a lurker at SSC. I've never posted a comment on the blog. I don't even read every post. I'm sure many of the regular readers and commentators are much better than I am at predicting what kind of book review will please you (Scott Alexander), and what kind of book review will get lots of votes from you all (SSC readers).
Heck, I'm not even sure I will be able to get you (Scott Alexander) to remember that my entry exists when you choose the finalists. And even if my entry becomes a finalist presented to you all (SSC readers), what I write may go in through your eyes and out your ears without ever reaching the parts of your brains which decide to vote for things. If I can't even pass the hurdle of 'you all can easily remember what the book review says when you make your decision' then my chances of winning this contest are zero.
This is where the book Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath comes in. It's a book that I can review! It also promises to teach readers how to make their ideas stickier so that the audience remembers them when they make decisions.
Everything in this review is my attempt to put the techniques taught in the book into action. Do the techniques in this book really work? I really hope so. Otherwise, I'm not going to win anything in this contest.
2.
According to the book, one of the most common obstacles to getting ideas to stick is 'The Curse of Knowledge'.
What is 'The Curse of Knowledge'? (if you already know the answer, feel free to skip this part of the book review)
I'm going to demonstrate with an exercise where you try to remember sentences.
Example Sentence #1: 'Canada is in North America.'
Now, read that example sentence again, count to ten, and then, without looking at the sentence again say it out loud.
I bet most of you were able to pull that off. Maybe a few of you can't talk out loud or have some other reason why this was difficult for you, but for most of you, this is easy.
Example Sentence #2: 'Internal service funds don't use the flow of financial resources measurement focus.'
Now, I dare you to read sentence #2 again, count to ten, and then, without looking at the sentence again say it out loud.
I bet most of you failed.
Sure, a few of you may know what 'internal service funds' and 'the flow of finanacial resources measurement focus' are. You might even think that statement is just as obvious as 'Canada is in North America'. If so, you probably were able to do the exercise successfully, or at least say something like 'internal service funds don't use the current financial resources focus' which means practically the same thing.
But most of you are blissfully ignorant of what Example #2 means, which is why you have so much trouble keeping it in your head ten seconds after you read it.
Let's say we were at a meeting together, and in a sudden burst of passion I blurted out 'internal service funds don't use the flow of financial resources measurement focus.' Would you remember the content of what I said even a minute later? Unless you were cursed with the same knowledge as I am, the answer is no.
Now imagine that you were talking to someone who had never, ever heard of 'Canada' or 'North America' before. They have no idea that any place called 'America' exists. Heck, they haven't even heard of cardinal directions, so the concept of 'North' is completely new to them. Whereas almost all of you are cursed with knowledge of Canada and North America, this hypothetical person is blissfully ignorant of such things. How well do you think they would remember the sentence 'Canada is in North America' after counting to ten?
According to the writers of the book, you are overestimating your ability to communicate 'Canada is in North America' to people who are ignorant of 'Canada', 'America', and 'North'.
The book refers to a psychological experiment in which one group of people, called 'Tappers' tapped the rhythms of famous songs, such as "Happy Birthday to You" and "The Star-Spangled Banner" and a second group of people, called 'Listeners' tried to guess the song. Tappers predicted that the Listeners had 50 percent odds of guessing correctly. In reality, the Listeners guessed correctly only 2.5% of the time. That is because the Tappers could hear the melodies in their head, whereas the Listeners couldn't hear any melody.
If you are capable of mental imagery, you can probably visualize a map of North America and see Canada's position on the map, just as the Tappers can hear the tune of the song they are tapping to in their heads. But people are blissfully ignorant of 'Canada', 'America', and 'North' can't see that map in their minds.
The Curse of Knowledge is that people who know about Thing can't make good mental models of people who don't know about Thing. And then the people cursed with knowledge fail to communicate with the blissfully ignorant.
I wish I could have avoided writing this entire section of the book review and just use the phrase 'the Curse of Knowledge' whenever the concept came up. Some of you keep track of the names of cognitive biases and already knew what 'The Curse of Knowledge' meant. But if I relied on you all already knowing what 'The Curse of Knowledge' means, I would be falling into the 'Curse of Knowledge' trap myself. It's safer to assume that you need this explanation.
The Curse of Knowledge might cause me to lose this book review contest.
I am cursed with knowledge about Made to Stick because I read the whole book. Most of you haven't read the book, and thus are blissfully ignorant of its contents. I might throw around terms from the book like 'the Sinatra test' or 'antiauthority' or 'curiosity gap' which will just sail over your head.
If I fail to vigilantly counter the Curse of Knowledge, you won't understand what I'm trying to say in this review, which means you'll forget about it, which means I am going to do very badly in this contest.
3.
The book is built around the acronymn SUCCESs, with each letter (except the final one) representing one of the principles of sticky ideas. They are also the titles of the chapters:
1. Simplicity
2. Unexpectedness
3. Concreteness
4. Credibility
5. Emotions
6. Stories
I tried to cram every single one of these principles in the opening section of this book review.
SIMPLICITY - The main idea of this book review is "Can a book teach readers how to present ideas so that the ideas stick in other people's minds?" I made it the very first sentence so that you would not miss it.
UNEXPECTEDNESS - If this were the Kirkus Reviews, then the style of this review would be unexpected. Since this is Slate Star Codex, maybe this style isn't so unexpected. I also don't want to break the typical patterns for SSC book reviews so badly that I disqualify myself for the contest.
But I did try to create some 'curiosity gaps'.
According to the book, curiosity gaps are created when you give partial information that suggests missing information. If you have read the first half of a murder mystery novel, you probably know that at least one character is a murder victim. That suggests that there is also a murderer, but you (hopefully) don't know who they are yet. One piece of information (character X has been murdered) suggests a missing piece of information (identity of the murderer). The mystery murder novelist is trying to create a compelling curiosity gap so that you will keep turning the pages.
I have told you that this book claims to teach techniques for making ideas sticky. What I have not told you is whether or not the techniques work. I'm also trying to make a curiosity gap out of how many votes this book review will get in the contest, but if this book review isn't a finalist that curiosity gap has already been closed for you.
CONCRETENESS
This book review contest is a concrete idea. Placing as a finalist or not is concrete. Numbers of votes cast are concrete. The book Made to Stick itself is a concrete idea, it's not some hypothetical abstraction of a type of book which may potentially exist, it's a specific book which already exists. I also tried to use concrete language such as 'go in through your eyes and out your ears without ever reaching the parts of your brains which decide to vote for things'.
CREDIBILITY
The book describes various different ways to establishing credibility. The one I chose is 'testable credential'. I'm using a bunch of techniques described in the book, YOU get to test whether they work or not. You don't have to take my word for it. Are you going to forget the contents of this book review ten minutes after you stop reading it, or are you still going to think about something I said here a week from now?
EMOTIONS
In retrospect, I could have put in an appeal to self-interest in the opening section, yet I did not. Maybe I thought that would have been too obvious. In case it's not too obvious, I'm going to add it here 'Imagine what you could do if you could make your ideas stick better in other people's heads - but make sure that techniques actually work before you invest time/money in this book.'
My first inclination was to address this book review to the third person - Scott Alexander and SSC readers. But the book strongly recommends using the word 'you' a lot, which is why I am addressing you all as 'you all'.
I also made an appeal to identity. I identified myself as a lurker. According to the book, that will get the attention of those of you who also identify as lurkers.
STORIES
The book recommends using one of three story patterns, not because they are the only story patterns which work, but because they are the three most common story patterns used for conveying sticky ideas.
I decided to go with the 'Challenge' story pattern. 'David and Goliath' is an archetypical 'Challenge' story.
In my story, the Slate Star Codex book review contest is the challenge. I am David. Goliath is the contestant who is submitting a brillaint review of a book about AI Safety, about the psychology of cognitive bias, about ancient Sumerian temple politics, about the replication crisis, about Kaballah, about a brilliant topic which did not even occur to me. The book Made to Stick is my slingshot.
The book emphasizes that you don't have to invent your stories, it is just as good or even better to merely spot stories which serve your purpose. I didn't invent the story I'm using. I really am submitting this review to the book review contest. I really am daunted by the prospect of stiff competition. I really am nervous that you might laugh at me because this review is so gimmicky, or that you might sneer at me being so blatant about trying to not lose, or worst of all, that you might forget this book review ten minutes after you stop reading it.
4.
There is something I feel compelled to acknowledge, even though it's not directly revelant to the thesis 'does this book teach people how to make their ideas sticky?'
One of the examples featured prominently in Chapter 6 "Stories" is how Jared Fogle provided Subway with an extremely sticky and effective story which led to a dramatic increase in Subway's sales.
This book was published in 2007. Jared Fogle was convicted of distribution and receipt of child pornography and traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor in 2015. There is audio evidence that he did much worse than that. As part of the plea bargain, he was required to pay $100,000 each in compensation to ten different victims. But the writers of Made to Stick couldn't have known about any of that in 2007.
Though the writers' point about why the Fogle story was so effective for getting more people to buy Subway sandwiches still stands, I have a feeling that if they ever revised this book they would remove, or at least make substantial changes, to this example. Even from a detached amoral standpoint, Fogle's current reputation as a sexual predator of children is just too distracting to ever use him in an inspiring story again.
It's a reminder that something like 'convicted of sexually preying upon children' is very sticky, yet nobody wants to stick out in that particular way.
5.
I'm trying to think of examples which disprove the hypothesis 'this book teaches you how to make ideas sticky.'
I cannot think of any examples of ideas which stuck with me in spite of the absence of these techniques. Even when I was learning about things like internal service funds and the flow of financial resources measurement focus, I was filling in curiosity gaps - 'if internal service funds don't use the flow of fianancial resources measurement focus, what measurement focus do they use? The flow of economic resources measurement focus? But how are economic resources different from financial resources?'
So I have failed to think of an example of any idea sticking with me in spite of violating all of the principles in this book.
But what about the reverse? Are there examples of ideas which were presented to me in a way which perfectly executed the techniques in the book, yet they failed to stick with me anyway?
Well gee, I can't come up with any example like that either, because if I've forgotten something, I've forgotten it.
6.
A lot of the ideas in this book seem obvious, so obvious that I feel like I don't need a book to tell me about them.
Some of the advertisements on the SSC website are already using the principles described in the book, and I doubt it is because the people making those ads already read the book.
(Note: I wrote this before the SSC website got taken down: you can see the ads which I mention via the Wayback Machine
The book talks about why focusing on a single African child is so effective for fundraising for charities, and lo and behold, the Altruisto ad features a photo of a single African child. It's a cliche of charity fundraising, and thus non-surprising, but at least it's a tactic with a good track record of working to some extent (though, for the record, I've never clicked on the ad).
The 80,000 hours ad puts front and center a concrete idea - 80,000 hours. When I first started reading SSC, the 80,000 ad was the first one I ever clicked on because it forcefully presents a concrete idea. I had a curiosity gap about what '80,000 hours' had to do with doing maximum good with my career, and the idea of fulfiling career which maximises my contribution to solving the world's most pressing problems appealed very strongly to my enlightened self-interest.
"Giving What We Can" is a very simple idea, and that photo is an effective emotional appeal. When I see the group of happy people, I feel like joining the happy people and being happy alongside them. (That said, I've never clicked on the ad because I don't feel enough curiosity to learn more.)
The MealSquares ad even manages to use one of the more advanced techniques in the book, of building on the audience's existing mental schemas. Many SSC readers, especially the ones who would be most intersted in MealSquares, already know what Soylent is, so "Think Soylent, except zero preparation, made with natural ingredients, and looks/tastes a lot like an ordinary scone" conveys a more vivid idea of what MealSquares are and what purpose they serve than if the ad had not mentioned 'Soylent' at all. (I clicked on this ad long before I wrote this review).
So if the techniques in the book are so obvious that everyone is already using them, what's the point of reading the book?
The point is that we often don't use the techniques in the book, even when they would benefit us.
I think Dr. Laura Baur is probably Cursed with Knowledge. She's an expert on 'relational psychotherapy' so she's lost sight of the fact that people like me don't know what 'relational psychotherapy' is. I don't even know enough about it to be curious. And isn't all psychiatry supposed to be 'rational'? And if not, how do I know that 'rational' psychiatry is better than 'irrational' psychiatry? The 'Seattle Anxiety Specialists' ad is better because I know what 'anxiety' is; I understand that they are the kind of people I might want approach for help if I have an anxiety problem.
I cannot recall ever paying attention to the Beeminder ad until I analyzed it for this book review. My reaction to 'Beeminder: Automated Self-Control Technology' is 'who cares.' I doubt I ever read the blurb before, because I think I would have at least remembered that it has something to do with keeping resolutions. Other than the phrase 'keep resolutions' it might as well be droning sounds to me, which is consistent with the bee theme but doesn't make me want to click on the ad. If instead, the ad had read 'Do you struggle with keeping resolutions?' (simple, emotional appeal to self-interest) I probably would at least have remembered the the ad exists, and possibly might have even clicked on it.
No, I'm not trying to shill for any of these advertisers, I'm only using them as my examples because because you can refer to them without leaving the SSC website.
Ironically, the techniques in the book may seem so obvious because it is much easier to remember sticky ideas (which use the techniques) than non-sticky ideas (which don't use the techniques).
7.
In Chapter 5 "Emotions" it is said:
Our publisher rejected the following subtitle for this book: "They Laughed When We Wrote This Book. But When They Woke Up in an Ice-Filled Bathtub..."
I decided to make that the title of this review because I was too lazy to come up with my own title I want you all to know what kind of taste Chip and Dan Heath have in (sub)titles.
8.
I am having doubts about the effectiveness of this book.
Presumably, the writers of the book have mastered the all of the principles and techniques in this book. Otherwise, they wouldn't be qualified to write a book about it, would they?
Presumably, the writers implemented all of the principles and techniques in the book itself. After all, if they know effective ways to get the content of their message to stick to the minds of their audience, they would want to use that in the book they wrote, right?
Presumably, because the writers applied super-duper sticky glue to the content of the book, the ideas are permanently stuck to my mind, right?
Ahem.
I do, in fact, remember much of the content of this book. But that might have something to do with me wanting to review it. I'm not sure how much would have stuck with me otherwise.
And in the middle ... I lost interest, and ended up reading another book instead. I couldn't come back to this book until I finished reading the other book. And no, the other book wasn't a murder mystery, it wasn't even fiction, or a bestseller, it was a scholarly book for crying out loud, and I was still more eager to read it than Made to Stick.
Yes, I did come back to Made to Stick and read it to the end, but I'm not sure I would have done that if I hadn't already decided to write this review.
I think the introduction to Made to Stick is a little too successful at summarizing everything. Because the beginning of book had such a complete description of the main ideas, I only had mild curiosity about the main chapters. And indeed, the main chapters were not terribly surprising since the core ideas are already explained in the introduction.
By contrast, with the scholarly book, I discovered early on that I was bad at predicting the writers' opinions. I knew what the topic of each chapter was from the table of contents, but I didn't know what the analysis/judgment of the topic would be until I read the chapter. It was like binge-watching reaction videos on YouTube.
On the one hand, the Made to Stick framework can accurately describe why I was more motivated to read that scholarly book; it was more suprising and opened bigger curiosity gaps. So, Made to Stick earns points for having an explantion. On the other hand, this is an example of Chip and Dan Heath violating their own principle - they wrote a book that is too predictable. So I'm deducting points, and this book's score is back at zero.
If I'm David, and Made to Stick is my slingshot, I think I might be entering my showdown with Goliath with a broken slingshot.
9.
I just gave my very best try at implementing the principles of this book.
Now let's see how well the content of this book review sticks in your mind. If you have forgotten the what this book review says by tomorrow, that means the book didn't teach me how to make ideas stick in people's minds, and chances are it can't teach you either. But if a week from now you can still recall the gist of this book review, or a thought from this book review spontaneously floats into your mind, then maybe Made to Stick does live up to its promise.